If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Farewell To The Linux 2.6 Kernel?

10-17-2008, 04:00 PM

Phoronix: Farewell To The Linux 2.6 Kernel?

Version 2.6 of the Linux kernel was released in late 2003 and since then the developers have stuck with the 2.6.x.y version numbering. It's been five years with the stable Linux 2.6 kernel, but a proposal has been made on the Linux kernel mailing list to change this scheme...

Personally I think this would be a stupid idea. To track a kernel release history would be a pain in the ass between the RC's and final. Hell even MS abandoned such stupid release monikers after Win 2k.

Comment

OK but I really don't see the value of having a year used as a version number especially in a project that does not comply to any real set release dates or schedule.

I'm in 100% agreement with you.
In addition to that, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the current version naming scheme. I like the fact that it has used the same scheme for the last 4-5 years, it makes it dependable. Changing it would only lead to confusion, much like how Nvidia has messed up their versioning schemes with some cards the GeForce 9xxx series basically being re-branded 8xxx series cards, and others having a completely redesigned GPU.

I vote for keeping the 2.6.x versioning until the end of time!
(or until changes of significant magnitude are made to justify a 2.8.x or even 3.0 release)

Comment

If my opinion meant anything (which it doesn't) I would vote to go with the time base numbering - but drop the stupid Millennium and century. It would have the added benefit of putting the major numbers in sync with Ubuntu, and put the current number 1 ahead of the next Windows release.

Kubuntu 8.10, with kernel 8.27.7!

And, only when a minor number changes should the major number change. Also, patch levels should never change the major number. That is to say - at the stroke of midnight 8.28-12 does not become 9.28.12. The next patch would still be 8.28.13... etc. 9.29.1 would be the first "new" kernel. Let the minor revision climb until there's an major re-architecture of some piece of the kernel.

Comment

It would have the added benefit of putting the major numbers in sync with Ubuntu,

Linux does not revolve around ubuntu. Ubuntu's numbering scheme makes sense for them as they release on set schedules like clockwork. This does not apply to the kernel at all (or any other real opensource project). It's a lot easier to package a bunch of software together then it is to develop where unforseen events can delay a working release ranging from days to months to years.